And I Think the NYTimes Is Also Responsible

The NYTimes, writing about our situation, dealt, in part, with the problem of whether or not the Arabs might kill, G-d forbid, Gilad Shalit.

They published this:-

The three Palestinian factions holding the soldier had set a deadline of 6 a.m. Tuesday (11 p.m. Monday, Eastern time) for Israel to begin releasing Palestinian prisoners, threatening unspecified consequences for the soldier, who was captured June 25. The implication was that they might kill him, but the captors left that unclear.

"Whether he will be killed or not killed, we will not disclose any information," said Abu al-Muthana, a spokesman for the Army of Islam, one of the factions.

But he also said: "We do not kill captives. Our Islam requires that we treat captives well and fairly."

Yet a young Israeli settler in the West Bank, Eliyahu Asheri, 18, who was also captured last week, was executed with a single bullet to the head and his body was found in a shallow grave. The Popular Resistance Committees, another of the groups holding Corporal Shalit, took responsibility for killing Mr. Asheri.

It is commendable theat this august paper noted the contradiction (okay, lie) in Abu's statement but one reason, perhaps, that Eliyahu's death came that way was because foreign observers (media, diplomats, NGOs and other goodie-goodies) agreed with the Arab view that se revenants are fair game, so to say. Our blood is cheap. Term us a "settler" and we're a legitimate target.

Even an Israeli government representative wouldn't come to the funeral.

So, maybe the NYT is also partly responsible for this situation?